Just saying there are a more Half Life games than Halo ones. I just find it bizarre that Halo is one of the only series that I have come across that has been accused of "milking" the franchise when it has only just reached the 6 game mark.

Like I said, there are much better examples (Mario, Sonic, Metal Gear Solid) but I chose to go for one that he has suggested he likes a lot.

jbchillin:thankgod. someone who doesnt think that halo reach is the second coming of the bible. HALO REACH IS A MEDIOCRE GAME AT BEST!

AND THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT MAN! NOT AN OPINION OR ANYTHING! ALSO CAPSLOCK FOR EMPHASIS!

...Yeah. You get my point?

Sometimes I would like to shoot Yahtzee for giving the people of this site the words "generic" and "mediocre" to their dictionaries, especially considering "mediocre" is meaningless in the discussion of how good a game is, and "generic" can very rarely be applied to anything other than clothing and food.

Though I've never been a big fan of the Halo series I've been planning to give this a rent for awhile now. It certainly seems to make enough changes to the formula (like having protagonists with personalities) that I'd probably enjoy it at the time.

Unfortunately it sounds like (and Yahtzee is by no means the only reviewer to point this out) this is yet another Halo game where they built the multiplayer and went "Fuck, now we need to give them something to do when there not teabagging." This is probably just bias on my part as I'm one of those gamers that agree completely that a game must stand on its single player but it really amazes me how little there is to the single player experience in the Halo games. IT makes me think of Goldeneye.

Still, I'll rent it and most likely enjoy it. And now I'm looking forward to the ending.

EightGaugeHippo:I just noticed he didnt say anything was terible. A few flaws, But nothing major.

That's because Bungie never really changed anything in the whole run of the series. You can't complain about things that have been shit in the first one, since they have became part of the franchise.

Yeah, but Bungie has changed things. Halo 1 is very different to Halo Reach. Oh wait sorry, they still have sheilds and space marines and a few of the same weapons, thats the formula for shitness apparently.

I played Halo 1 a few days before i gave Reach a try. The Art-Direction is a lot darker.

That's it.

A few days before you played reach? Let me ask you some thing. was that your first time or did you ever play Halo 1 when it was new?

I played it the first time it was released. Played Halo 2 the first time it was released. Didn't care for 3, Wars or ODST. Reach looked different, except it wasn't.

So you are saying that Halo has just been more of the same since day 1? Well good sir, tell me a single franchise that has not been more of the same? Because as far as im aware thats pretty much what a franchise is. A continuation of something popular. If Halo 2 was not similar to Halo 1 the franchise would have died, because Halo 1 was such a huge hit it would be stupid not to milk its success. If you want something different to Halo 1, play another game. I didnt go to watch Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back expecting something completely different to A new Hope.

To use your example, Empire Strikes Back. It took the franchise in a whole new, darker direction, as well as adding telekinesis to the ever-growing list of things the Force can do. Look at what happens throughout: The Alliance fights losing battle after losing battle, Luke still doesn't have enough of a grip on his powers to fight Darth Vader and it costs him his hand and lightsaber in the process, Han winds up being bashed around, betrayed, and then sealed in a block of carbonite (which probably, given the physical properties of carbon, smelled like being buried in charcoal briquettes), the other characters are either enslaved or dismantled, and the Empire pretty much wins a clear victory-- which, according to the expanded universe, is the ONLY clear victory in the whole Empire-Alliance conflict. What movie were you watching that this wasn't different from A New Hope, which was a space fantasy samurai flick where the good guys won?

How's this other example? Mass Effect. The first game's combat was inferior to the second's, because they thought they were making an RPG with shooting elements. The second game was a shooter with RPG elements. Similar, but there were enough changes that the first game and the second game were, essentially, two different games.

I know I forgot some. Any others?

** edited to change "decisive", which isn't quite what I meant, to "clear", which is closer to what I meant.

LEt me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Good review. Nice that he didn't hate it, and I totally agree with him on Multiplayer and how the game should stand up on it's own campaign. Which I think is what it should do too. Still love the multiplayer though.

Am I the only one who laughed my figurative arse off at the imp crashing in on a ghost saying: "Sup y'all niggas"?

I liked Halo: Reach. Played it over at a pal's house and a 1v1v1 match can get pretty damned fun. The powers make it easier to kill good players (I actually won one game because of the armor lock that Yahtzee thinks is crap for some reason), without making the game too easy.Liked invasion too. It's like capture the point in TF2. You even get premade classes and crap.

However, I strongly disagree that all games must be able to stand on their single-player content. I would never, ever pay for Modern Warfare 2 if I only had the single-player campaign. The way I see it, the price you pay is for the game. The campaign, multiplayer, customisation screen, theater, dress-up and vibrating cup are just parts that make up the game in its entirety. If a game's other parts stop working, well then the game just gets worse than it was before. Situations change, after all.

I've got to disagree on the multiplayer argument. When a team's efforts are diverted into more than just the single player that effort deserves some kind of merit (or at least notification of it's existence). Why review something if you're only going to review 20% of it? Oh right, this is Zero Punctuation...Never mind!

(however i hate you for ruining my campaign experiences from now on because now i can never unimagine the whole "they never freaking fall-off their goddamn fast aircraft even though they're more than half off the edge).

ProfessorLayton:I am actually surprised that he didn't tear it apart, but I still think that saying "a game has to stand up on single player alone" is a very silly statement. So is the quality of an MMO diminished because there's no mode to grind quests by yourself?

EightGaugeHippo:Let me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Mass Effect 1&2 both have great story and epic encounters.

The same can be said for Halo 1-Reach

Wait a second, are you actually saying you played Halo for the story? Really? Because i came in expecting a good story, but i haven't found it. It was simpler than the horrible mishmash that Halo 2 was, but it wasn't good.

A great example of sequel done better is Half-Life 2. New Weapons, new enemies, same enemies in new and refreshing disguise, new gameplay-elements like the gravity-gun, completely different setting and storyline, new characters, more depth, etc.

I like how all the halo haters were expecting him to rip it apart then to fuck there minds he said it was all right hahawhy are so many people comparing halo to half life that's just not fair its like comparing a runner to a wheelchair bound turtle its just not fair

Loved Halo Reach, though Yahtzee's main complaint is also mine. Seems Bungie only ever makes characters with personality if their death is near. It happened to Johnson and Miranda, while the quiet, emotionless green super soldier gets to live to take a nap in deep space.Reach made me want to play Mass Effect 2 again, just so I can actually alter the story so that my teammates DON'T die cheap, predictable deaths.

As surprised that I am that Yahtzee somewhat enjoyed this game, I still think it's complete bullshit that he only reviews the single player, treating the multiplayer like it's something that only 13 year olds do and acting like he's better than everyone else because multiplayer is for douche bags. When a development team spends what was likely half of their time and money on a certain aspect of a game, it isn't exactly good reviewing practice to promptly ignore that part in your review because you are "0mg such a h1gh class gaem3r".

Fortunately for Yahtzee, however, the multiplayer in this particular installment is sort of like the single player: better than average, but still pretty meh. It was great in Halo 2 and 3, but I'm tired of it by now and the maps are quite awful.

Seriously, though, "A full price game has to stand up on single player"? That's a load of crap. I liked Gears of War because the multiplayer was dynamic and creative, but it probably has some of the worst single player I've ever seen in a big budget game. Not to mention the full price games out there that are only multiplayer.

And I know someone out there is going to accuse me of being a Halo fanboy, which I guess is fair enough since it's somewhat true. But I'm pretty much over it now, I swear (Just one more time man! Just one more hit/blunt/game of MTG and I swear I'll never do it again!). I was excited when Reach came out, but then didn't have enough money to buy it for myself. I ended up playing it at my friend's houses, and while it was fun, it wasn't worth the hype. Like I said before, (or half said, at any rate; I implied it. Kind of.) this is just a complaint about the completeness of the review: if Yahtzee had actually played the multiplayer, he'd probably have said the same thing he did about the single player, and he would have been totally spot-on.

*EDIT*But oh, God, was he right about the terrible plot. The voice acting was almost on par with a Silent Hill game, and the characters might as well have been made of cardboard. Though I guess then they wouldn't really be able to stand up to much gunfire, but whatever.

EightGaugeHippo:Let me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Mass Effect 1&2 both have great story and epic encounters.

The same can be said for Halo 1-Reach

Wait a second, are you actually saying you played Halo for the story? Really? Because i came in expecting a good story, but i haven't found it. It was simpler than the horrible mishmash that Halo 2 was, but it wasn't good.

A great example of sequel done better is Half-Life 2. New Weapons, new enemies, same enemies in new and refreshing disguise, new gameplay-elements like the gravity-gun, completely different setting and storyline, new characters, more depth, etc.

Halo is missing all that.

Once again, this is all opinion. ALL FUCKING OPINION. And oyu're arguing about it as if it's scientific fact.

Zero Punctuation is brilliant, but it brings out by far the worst in the community here. Refer back to my last post in this thread. You guys are behaving like youtube trolls.

I'm very surprised that people are surprised that yathzee didn't completely hate halo reach. Seems like a well made game from what everybody says. I mean his halo three review said the game was mediorce and run of the mill. I think he said that here too but not in those exact words.

EightGaugeHippo:Let me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Mass Effect 1&2 both have great story and epic encounters.

The same can be said for Halo 1-Reach

Wait a second, are you actually saying you played Halo for the story? Really? Because i came in expecting a good story, but i haven't found it. It was simpler than the horrible mishmash that Halo 2 was, but it wasn't good.

A great example of sequel done better is Half-Life 2. New Weapons, new enemies, same enemies in new and refreshing disguise, new gameplay-elements like the gravity-gun, completely different setting and storyline, new characters, more depth, etc.

Halo is missing all that.

Once again, this is all opinion. ALL FUCKING OPINION. And oyu're arguing about it as if it's scientific fact.

Zero Punctuation is brilliant, but it brings out by far the worst in the community here. Refer back to my last post in this thread. You guys are behaving like youtube trolls.

I'm happy to see that despite him liking the game, the Halo fanboys still found ways to clog the board with their "Waaah waaaah! He didn't praise it enough!" child-like tantrums. Just another day on ZP.

P.S. I repeat: "MULTIPLAYA YO!" has become the 21st century equivalent to the late 90s's "awsum gr4fx". You can roll out anything, but if you hit that one little box on the checklist, all the 12 year old boys of the world will defend your work to the end.

ProfessorLayton:You already made the "Hello, Goodbye" pun on the Halo 3 video... or was that intended...

I am actually surprised that he didn't tear it apart, but I still think that saying "a game has to stand up on single player alone" is a very silly statement. So is the quality of an MMO diminished because there's no mode to grind quests by yourself?

Not sure I've ever played or heard of an MMO where you have to do everything with another person

EightGaugeHippo:Let me make that point more clear. The two films may have been different down to every detail. But I went to see it expecting more of the great story telling and epic battles I got from a new hope.

Mass Effect 1&2 both have great story and epic encounters.

The same can be said for Halo 1-Reach

Wait a second, are you actually saying you played Halo for the story? Really? Because i came in expecting a good story, but i haven't found it. It was simpler than the horrible mishmash that Halo 2 was, but it wasn't good.

A great example of sequel done better is Half-Life 2. New Weapons, new enemies, same enemies in new and refreshing disguise, new gameplay-elements like the gravity-gun, completely different setting and storyline, new characters, more depth, etc.

Halo is missing all that.

Once again, this is all opinion. ALL FUCKING OPINION. And oyu're arguing about it as if it's scientific fact.

Zero Punctuation is brilliant, but it brings out by far the worst in the community here. Refer back to my last post in this thread. You guys are behaving like youtube trolls.

Well it is a fact that the Halo Franchise is missing some "change".

Each game has enough change in it to warrant being called "different". That's good enough for me.

Really, some people (not you or the guy you were arguing with) make me so damn annoyed. They seem to have made it their life's mission to try and destroy any games they don't like (and usually this means "games not made by Valve" on these forums). Do they care that some people don't give a shit about comparing Halo to some old game which supposedly has greater depth and more change, because they've got a positive enough outlook on life to be satisfied with a game which is just fun? No. They will not rest until every person in the world has been utterly convinced that Halo is an abomination and we should all be playing Half-Life, and are convinced that anybody who prefers Halo is a casual dipshit with no taste. It's the very worst kind of fanboyism, and I hate it. I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, and I just wish these people would see reason and stop.

This militant, elitist and extreme fanboyism of Half Life 2 is incidentally why I hate the game and franchise despite never having played it.

Just saying there are a more Half Life games than Halo ones. I just find it bizarre that Halo is one of the only series that I have come across that has been accused of "milking" the franchise when it has only just reached the 6 game mark.

Like I said, there are much better examples (Mario, Sonic, Metal Gear Solid) but I chose to go for one that he has suggested he likes a lot.

jbchillin:thankgod. someone who doesnt think that halo reach is the second coming of the bible. HALO REACH IS A MEDIOCRE GAME AT BEST!

AND THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT MAN! NOT AN OPINION OR ANYTHING! ALSO CAPSLOCK FOR EMPHASIS!

...Yeah. You get my point?

Sometimes I would like to shoot Yahtzee for giving the people of this site the words "generic" and "mediocre" to their dictionaries, especially considering "mediocre" is meaningless in the discussion of how good a game is, and "generic" can very rarely be applied to anything other than clothing and food.

Aww thank you. What with the fanboys not being able to cry about his review, I was missing the inevitable child coming in and whining about how we only have the opinions Yahtzee gives us. Yes, words such as "mediocre" are so rare and high-fallutin', it can only have been handed to us without paycheck (for we are all plants) by Yahtzee himself.

My Lord, how do you people even think of these things and not feel embarrassed?

OhJohnNo:This militant, elitist and extreme fanboyism of Half Life 2 is incidentally why I hate the game and franchise despite never having played it.

*sigh* That is so precious, I wanna pinch your cheek and give you a toffee.